358:
family-friendly by
Christian conservative members of society. In the U.S., we have seen protest of gay characters in "family-friendly" programs and book/movies series like Harry Potter due to it's occult nature by Christian conservative media watchdog groups such as "Focus on the Family". Over time, the definition of "family friendly" has also changed over times as views by the majority in American society have change on certain issue such as race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. --
74:
53:
84:
22:
163:
400:
For myself, the context of human sexuality is life, so my feeling is basically: get on with it. Often the sheltered child turns into a foolish adolescent—and from there it's not a big leap to a buffoonish young adult. But then again, there's no Latin word at all that makes me blush in any company, so
187:
_ _ My treatment of it is bound to be terrible, but hopefully i have raised some important aspects that others will handle better. I wrote w/o researching, and while i assume my assertions are verifiable, there should IMO be much research needed for aspects i've neglected, e.g. specific uses on right
230:
film franchise might be considered "family friendly" by some parents, but may be considered by other parents to be too scary for younger children. And yes, a rather small portion of the population may use it as a sort of "code phrase" to exclude innocent depictions of, or exposure to, diversity of
285:
I was wondering, when a restaurant or business considers itself family friendly, does that allow for more misbehavior for children? See, I've run into parents who feel if a restaurant or business is family friendly, anyone suggesting they should control their child or see that their child doesn't
166:
using "family-friendly", and all of the 1st five do so as if the term were NPoV: no quotes, no lk. In fact, only two articles lk to any form of it, one of them only for the last few hours. It is in fact fundamentally PoV, and it's hard to imagine a use where NPoV doesn't require at least
357:
I think the subjectiveness of this label needs to be more clearly spelled out in the article, at least with regard to fictional entertainment (Movies, TV, Books, etc.). A movie, TV show, or book, with gay characters or dealing with the occult is automatically not going to be viewed as
411:
Let's suppose in my household I oppose drinking alone (and there are consequences to support this), but I serve wine with every evening meal. Would that make me a prohibitionist? To go by the way that many people mindlessly bandy the word "censorship" around, it would indeed. —
223:
was one of the first "family friendly" hotel-casinos in Las Vegas, etc, etc.. To most people it just implies something or somewhere that is created for, or welcoming of, people of all ages. We get it - "family-friendly" can mean different things to different people; The
286:
misbehave shouldn't be there. Maybe there should be a section clarifying this issue, as I'm rather tired of parents throwing out that a place is family friendly, so it means their kids can run around like it's a Chuck E Cheese arcade.
211:" in the United States. I don't have the time to rewrite and source the claims made throughout the entire article right now, but I believe the most common usage of the term "family friendly" in popular media is more innocuous, as in:
407:
This was an even bigger problem before television had time shifting, for a variety of reasons (one of these being that you couldn't interrupt the show to discuss what was happening without missing what came next).
247:
film franchise is not. I honestly don't see the need for a big, long political thesis about the use of the term on this page. A couple of sentences about the incongruities of the usage of the term would be
397:
But this isn't entirely about censorship for many parents. It's about lack of balance. It's about presenting one side of something, without providing enough context about the other side of things.
404:
I occupy the other extreme concerning racism and drug use: these are social constructions that are highly contextual, which young children are woefully unprepared to consume as half a story.
352:
367:
342:
316:
270:
431:
287:
140:
427:
389:
Often, depiction of nudity, sex, horror, profanity, racial slurs, innuendo, drug use, blasphemy, and racism are declared to be worthy of
295:
280:
207:
No offense, but this page reads more like an article about the issues and controversies surrounding the more politically charged term "
454:
130:
459:
449:
338:
312:
435:
416:
259:
This section should be reworded for clarity. All necessary information is present, it is just rather hard to understand.
266:
106:
198:
372:
157:
346:
274:
97:
58:
421:
212:
320:
33:
188:
and left, probably direct quotes, and contradictory positions among the concept's whole-hearted advocates.
363:
226:
105:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
220:
359:
291:
21:
237:
39:
334:
308:
262:
8:
378:
172:
377:
I personally revile the FCC nanny state of the 1970s which framed my own childhood (see
216:
254:
243:
195:
89:
382:
326:
443:
208:
413:
83:
73:
52:
300:
191:
102:
231:
sexuality, or diversity of religions, etc, but I think
331:The construction seems to be influenced by German.
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
79:
353:"Family friendly" is a somewhat subjective label.
441:
401:I admit that maybe I'm also wired differently.
241:film franchise is "family friendly" and the
19:
381:) and it's later outgrowth as the smug
442:
215:is a "family friendly" movie studio;
95:This article is within the scope of
15:
219:is a "family friendly" restaurant;
38:It is of interest to the following
13:
281:In regards to misbehaving children
14:
471:
455:Low-importance politics articles
82:
72:
51:
20:
135:This article has been rated as
115:Knowledge:WikiProject Politics
1:
460:WikiProject Politics articles
347:17:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
275:01:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
118:Template:WikiProject Politics
109:and see a list of open tasks.
450:Stub-Class politics articles
436:13:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
368:23:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
7:
199:08:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
10:
476:
321:19:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
141:project's importance scale
417:20:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
373:Not just about censorship
296:13:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
134:
67:
46:
235:people would agree the
158:Formerly untitled posts
426:child friendly school
395:
28:This article is rated
422:child friendly school
387:
162:_ _ There are about
98:WikiProject Politics
379:Family Viewing Hour
164:165 articles on WP
34:content assessment
360:Notcharliechaplin
349:
337:comment added by
311:comment added by
265:comment added by
217:Chuck E. Cheese's
155:
154:
151:
150:
147:
146:
121:politics articles
467:
332:
323:
277:
179:via the markup
123:
122:
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
47:
31:
25:
24:
16:
475:
474:
470:
469:
468:
466:
465:
464:
440:
439:
424:
375:
355:
329:
306:
303:
283:
260:
257:
173:family-friendly
160:
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
90:Politics portal
88:
81:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
473:
463:
462:
457:
452:
423:
420:
383:Moral Majority
374:
371:
354:
351:
339:86.175.127.218
328:
325:
313:109.224.10.221
302:
299:
282:
279:
256:
253:
252:
251:
250:
249:
201:
189:
185:
184:
177:
176:
159:
156:
153:
152:
149:
148:
145:
144:
137:Low-importance
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
62:Low‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
472:
461:
458:
456:
453:
451:
448:
447:
445:
438:
437:
433:
429:
419:
418:
415:
409:
405:
402:
398:
394:
392:
386:
384:
380:
370:
369:
365:
361:
350:
348:
344:
340:
336:
324:
322:
318:
314:
310:
298:
297:
293:
289:
278:
276:
272:
268:
267:24.14.221.179
264:
246:
245:
240:
239:
234:
229:
228:
222:
221:Circus Circus
218:
214:
210:
209:family values
206:
205:
204:
203:
202:
200:
197:
193:
182:
181:
180:
174:
170:
169:
168:
165:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
85:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
49:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
425:
410:
406:
403:
399:
396:
390:
388:
376:
356:
333:— Preceding
330:
307:— Preceding
304:
288:Violet yoshi
284:
258:
242:
236:
232:
227:Harry Potter
225:
186:
178:
161:
136:
96:
40:WikiProjects
261:—Preceding
444:Categories
428:Itz Barney
391:censorship
30:Stub-class
238:Toy Story
335:unsigned
309:unsigned
263:unsigned
112:Politics
103:politics
59:Politics
255:Clarity
248:plenty.
139:on the
414:MaxEnt
327:German
213:Disney
36:scale.
192:Jerzy
432:talk
364:talk
343:talk
317:talk
305:hi
292:talk
271:talk
233:most
385:.
244:Saw
183:"]"
131:Low
446::
434:)
393:.
366:)
345:)
319:)
301:Hi
294:)
273:)
190:--
430:(
362:(
341:(
315:(
290:(
269:(
196:t
194:•
175:"
171:"
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
